What do we do about Africa?

[Medussa]

I will put 3 of them here, and I do realize that they won't be popular but then I've got balls <- only figuratively ofcourse :lol:

1. Politicians - there are plenty of promises made and very little kept. The poor rurals are promised a better life, better infrastructure and better access to basic life necessities ie. water, electricity and sanitation. Very little happens... The people are influenced by honey talks and so they vote for the same politicians year after year. Also partly their own fault. There are a lot of corrupt officials, caught with their pants round their anckles many times and yet they are not convicted. Things are swept under the carpet just too damn quickly.
I work with the poorest of the poor, the true rural African. I got an eye opener when I moved to the Eastern Cape, I'm originally from Gauteng (Johannesburg and surrouding area). The poverty of the rurals.. it breaks your heart. People that rely 100% on the forests, which makes my job harder as they are harvesting illegally. The legislation states that everybody has the right to utilize the forests, but certain trees are protected and a lot of debarking for traditional medicines are going on. That is exactly what I work with.

2. Affirmative action - this one goes in two ways. I do realize that it will stick with us for the next 2458694 years to come. I want the law passed that the new generation of young people are not influenced by it, they didn't cause it and I can't see why they should be punished for it. I'm in my 20's (late... dammit..) so we are the age group that deals with the newly appointed AA employees. Not an easy task. Another thing I would like to see is re-instating some of the older generation that was just let go (basically fired). They have the experience, keep them on contract, sort out some of the current problems, assist the people and help them. You won't believe how many technicians and consultants we employ in our deparment, simply because the people lack the skills to do the work.

3. Crime - This is a serious topic. I'm not for the death penalty, but sometimes when I see the crimes that are being committed... inhumane.. Very bad stuff, a lot of rape and not just adult rape.. baby rape. Our jails are truly overflowing, the system is failing many of the prisoners themselves. People who can't afford R50 ($10) bail are left for years in jails. There was a show last week that showed the condition of some of our prisons. 4 people to one bed, over a 100 people for one toilet, people crammed in like sardines. Check out this link that shows some of the problems:
http://www.sabcnews.co.za/specialassignment/chances.html

I will probably add to this at some stage. Economics is a deal totally on it's own. Industries that are still owned by the government, agriculture and the farmers that are left to fend for themselves during draughts. Immigration problems... Oh dear, I can go on and on for some time. The education system came to mind as well.

 

[tecoyah]

One of the main things that can make difference in Africa, and indeed the entire world is energy management. We need to develop a better form of production and USE it. Virtually every aspect of growth within a society is tied to living standards, and this can only be incresed dramatically with energy. Without a solid foundation for growth, throwing money at the symptoms will do little to Cure the disease of poverty.....which is the underlying problem.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

yeah, thats what ive been saying.

Governments aren't corporation, you can't apply some stock holder theory to the US Government. The whole rationale for a corporation to do only what is good for it's stock holders is because if they did what was good for everyone they would become a small government.

It's rather obvious that governments should act morally. To say otherwise is to try to get your "hard worked for tax dollars" spent on you and not people starving in some far away country.

 

[128shot]

Governments aren't corporation, you can't apply some stock holder theory to the US Government. The whole rationale for a corporation to do only what is good for it's stock holders is because if they did what was good for everyone they would become a small government.

It's rather obvious that governments should act morally. To say otherwise is to try to get your "hard worked for tax dollars" spent on you and not people starving in some far away country.

The question becomes on who the government listens too. The government drops morality when it can't even follow its own laws.

 

[DD7]

Blacks can't do **** cuz euro/american companies dump cheap (subsidised = taxpayers money) food, which forces local farmers out of work.

These blacks in turn migrate to Europe and America for employment.

 

[jujuman13]

I have worked in both Nigeria as well as Algeria, (yes Algeria is an African country).

In Nigeria the basic problem is CORRUPTION, it is rife and extends it's tentacles throughout society.
The current President appears to be doing all he can to root out corruption from within his own party as well as the various governors that control parts of Nigeria.

Obosango did not originally start off as a wealthy individual, he rose through the ranks of the Nigerian army eventually becoming a General, he then mounted a coup against the legitimately elected gov. and after a few years became an extremely wealthy individual, he permitted the country to return to an elected democracy and retired to become a farmer and businessman.
About a year before he was elected President he purchased for $130 Million the Political party he now heads.
True he now sees corruption as the ruin of his country and is seemingly doing all he can to eradicate it from Nigerian society.

A typical occurrence in Nigeria is that one travels along a road, is stopped by a policeman who asks "What do you have for me?" if you have any wish to move, you give him a few Naira, typically N10 for a Motorcyclist, up to N100 for a car with a westerner as a driver or passenger. A few meters down the road you come upon another road block, this time they tell you that you have no road fund license for the district you are driving through, you show them your road fund license affixed to the screen, they tell you that does not cover the area you are driving through, either you have a lengthy wait or you claim being part of some business that has influence in this district or you pay. The next day you return to that district, are stopped by the same road block, show them the license you bought the day before and are now told that that is now out of date.

Living and attempting to conduct constructive work like this is very exasperating, try it and see.

The problem is that in Nigeria the Police get paid on an intermittant basis, the school teachers do not get paid regularly, female teachers resort to prostitution in order to survive.

And amid all this the little men and women have to exist as best they can, living in huts I would not allow my dog to live in, without clean water, no sanitation, subject to thieves who steal what little they do possess.

Action has to come from the top and must gradually work it's way down to the roots of society.

Throwing money at a problem does no good, if Western Governments wish to give aid then this aid should be administered by those country's, so as to ensure where possible that the money does not simply vanish into some ones pocket.

I could go on and on giving examples but I get tired typing, and angry at the memory of what I lived through for 14 years in Nigeria.

 

[Red_Dave]

While i agree with you that a person must take responsibility for his/her own action i see no reason why a person must take responsibility for the action of his ancestors over which he had no control. Furthermore while not a Nhilist i do beleive that morality is derived only from agreement of both parties, in other words you have no moral duty were there was no commitment. In the case of international politics the colonial powers were bound by no agreement with Africa and therefor owed them nothing.

The reason a country need only act in the intereset of its citizens is derived from the previus paragraph. The citizen body binds itself to the state through civil contract for the sole purpose of protecting the citizen body. Its like in Hobbes and Rossous story of beggening of state, the citizens bind themselfs to mutual law and in return have peace. Citizens of one country have no such accord with citizens of another country and therefor can do whatever they please.

Furthermore as to the alligation that it inevitabky leads to conflict. We are dealing with a case of europe and Africa and in this specific case it did advance europe and was therefor profitable to its citizens making the straregy very usefull. You gave an example of Strong vs Strong while this is clearly a case of Strong vs Weak.

Im not saying we should be takeing responsbility for colonialism proper but the neocolonalist policys our governments still use. Although the 19th century model of colonalism is no longer in use western powers still exert significant control over african nations through insitutions like The World Bank and mulinational corporations. These insitutions drain natural resources out of africa at the expence of workers rights and the enviroment and come within our sphere of responsibility.

The idea that morality is derived from consensus from both partys makes little sence to me. Look at 9/11 the two main partys concerned where the terroists and the civillians they killed. Only one party belived this was immoral. Therefore unless ive misunderstood your thinking on this issue 9/11 is morally justifiyable.

Its illogical to claim that the messy state african politics is in is soley there fault when its western companys/states arming the dictatorships and mercenys that are destroying the continent. We bear responsibility as well. Its a fundamental reality of globalisation that what one country or one individual does effects people all over the world, thus bringing them in to there sphere of responsibility. As J.B Preistly put it "We do not live alone. We are members of one body"

I dont think 19th century colonalism did advance europe. It may have advanced the economic intrests of the upper class but it made life harder for alot of ordinary europeans. For example the poor in the uk had to face a tax on food that would help fund imperial expansion. Millions died in pointless conflicts that had no other purpose then to advance the economic intrests of those at the top [the most potent example being the Opium Wars] This reached its conclusion in the biggest waste of human life the world ever saw, namely world war one. This illustrates the folly of baseing policy on economic intrest [be it Opium or Oil] regardless of its effects on human life.

A more constructive approch would be to persue policys that put people before profit and work in the common intest. Such as the policy reversals i surgested earlyer.

 

[Andy]

1. Eliminate farm subsidies in the US and the EU

2. Expand microfinancing to farmers and small businessmen across the African continent.

3. Forgive all debts owed by African countries to the West.

4. Provide infastructural support by building and, more importantly, maintaining roads, canals, airports, sewers, etc.

5. Mediate meetings between African governments and the numerous revolutionary groups on the continent.

6. Work for the establishment of stable, good, but not necessarily fully democratic government. Many of the most successful developing nation of the past century (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, present-day China, South Africa, Ghana, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico) were originally dictatorships that transitioned into democracies as their economies grew.

 

[1069]

What western nations need to do is reform economic policies that damge the third world. By changeing these policies we can allow the continent to work its way out of poverty. For example its often the case that organisations like the World Bank force african nations to liberalise there economys by refusing to cancel there debt or give them aid. This is damageing in a number of ways.

For one thing its often better to keep some industrys nationalised. Water is a good example of this as its a scarce resource that needs to be provided as cheaply and efficiently as possible. As a result of the World Bank many governments have been forced to privitise there water industry leaving it under the control of westen mulinationals. This has often made water harder to get hold of.

Another related problem is that some contrys are forced to abandon protectionist policies. This is often damageing to farmers who find them selves having to compete with heavily subsidised E.U and U.S goods. These farmers often have trouble selling there goods to the U.S and E.U due to ridiculosly high tarrifs so the result is grosely unjust.

Those farmers working for mulinationals also have a major problem in that they tend to be paid a pittance this could be changed by a change in western economic poilcy.

Ild advocate,

1 Cutting E.U and U.S subsidies.

2Changeing the conditions that the World Bank gives for debt relief so that african countrys can choose there own economic policys.

3 Putting pressure on mulinationals to pay there workers a fair price.

4 Clicking the link "Global call to action against poverty in my signature. :mrgreen:

That was a very perceptive and insightful post, Dave.
I agree 100%.

 

[nkgupta80]

Im not saying we should be takeing responsbility for colonialism proper but the neocolonalist policys our governments still use. Although the 19th century model of colonalism is no longer in use western powers still exert significant control over african nations through insitutions like The World Bank and mulinational corporations. These insitutions drain natural resources out of africa at the expence of workers rights and the enviroment and come within our sphere of responsibility.

The idea that morality is derived from consensus from both partys makes little sence to me. Look at 9/11 the two main partys concerned where the terroists and the civillians they killed. Only one party belived this was immoral. Therefore unless ive misunderstood your thinking on this issue 9/11 is morally justifiyable.

Its illogical to claim that the messy state african politics is in is soley there fault when its western companys/states arming the dictatorships and mercenys that are destroying the continent. We bear responsibility as well. Its a fundamental reality of globalisation that what one country or one individual does effects people all over the world, thus bringing them in to there sphere of responsibility. As J.B Preistly put it "We do not live alone. We are members of one body"

I dont think 19th century colonalism did advance europe. It may have advanced the economic intrests of the upper class but it made life harder for alot of ordinary europeans. For example the poor in the uk had to face a tax on food that would help fund imperial expansion. Millions died in pointless conflicts that had no other purpose then to advance the economic intrests of those at the top [the most potent example being the Opium Wars] This reached its conclusion in the biggest waste of human life the world ever saw, namely world war one. This illustrates the folly of baseing policy on economic intrest [be it Opium or Oil] regardless of its effects on human life.

A more constructive approch would be to persue policys that put people before profit and work in the common intest. Such as the policy reversals i surgested earlyer.

to claim that 19th century colonialism did not advance europe is too tricky a claim to back. Obviously Europe did advance, so your only argument would be that Europe would be in an even better place had it not pursued an imperialist policy. Such a claim is almost impossible to back.

I agree with nero that There is no such thing as morals in international politics. Morals itslef i believe is created after a contract between individuals is created. (similar to hobbes' philosophy).

However, in a globalizing world, we have to understand that we are not separated from the rest of the world. As a nation pursuing our own interests, it is in US interests to help populations outside our country. Although Africa is a cheap labor force, and exploitable for resources, by helping the people improve living conditions and building the economy, corporataions will have a better market to exploit and grow off. This could be much more beneficial.

 

[Red_Dave]

to claim that 19th century colonialism did not advance europe is too tricky a claim to back. Obviously Europe did advance, so your only argument would be that Europe would be in an even better place had it not pursued an imperialist policy. Such a claim is almost impossible to back.

I agree with nero that There is no such thing as morals in international politics. Morals itslef i believe is created after a contract between individuals is created. (similar to hobbes' philosophy).

However, in a globalizing world, we have to understand that we are not separated from the rest of the world. As a nation pursuing our own interests, it is in US interests to help populations outside our country. Although Africa is a cheap labor force, and exploitable for resources, by helping the people improve living conditions and building the economy, corporataions will have a better market to exploit and grow off. This could be much more beneficial.

If you way out the pros and the cons of 19th century imperalism for the average european its easy to see it was a largely negative experience. Thats why imperalist expansion from the uk gradually slowed down as working class people began to get the right to vote.

I was thus far unaware that claiming your responsibile for your own actions was such a contensious issue. Could you explain how 9/11 is immoral according to your view of morality?

 

[nkgupta80]

If you way out the pros and the cons of 19th century imperalism for the average european its easy to see it was a largely negative experience. Thats why imperalist expansion from the uk gradually slowed down as working class people began to get the right to vote.

I was thus far unaware that claiming your responsibile for your own actions was such a contensious issue. Could you explain how 9/11 is immoral according to your view of morality?

the uk, for example, would not have been where it is today, had it not been for industrialization. Industrialization would have not occured had it not been for the exploitation of resources from abroad. Some of the major reasons imperialism stopped was overexpansion, growing competition among european nation states, and various resistance movements that began to form.



9/11 wasn't immoral in international politics. Like i said before there is no morality in that realm. All the terrorists really did in killing those innocent people was begin a war against the nation they attacked. Each nation, government, state, etc. has its own agenda. each such entity will work its best to pursue that agenda. The islamic jihadists will work to pursue their agenda. The iraqis will work to pursue theirs, the usa will work to pursue their own.

My argument is that since we are getting more connected, the US has more incentive to include the interests of others in our own interests.

So... by helping those in Africa properly, we will be securing the safety of our own country.

 

[Teven_1]

the uk, for example, would not have been where it is today, had it not been for industrialization. Industrialization would have not occured had it not been for the exploitation of resources from abroad. Some of the major reasons imperialism stopped was overexpansion, growing competition among european nation states, and various resistance movements that began to form.



9/11 wasn't immoral in international politics. Like i said before there is no morality in that realm. All the terrorists really did in killing those innocent people was begin a war against the nation they attacked. Each nation, government, state, etc. has its own agenda. each such entity will work its best to pursue that agenda. The islamic jihadists will work to pursue their agenda. The iraqis will work to pursue theirs, the usa will work to pursue their own.

My argument is that since we are getting more connected, the US has more incentive to include the interests of others in our own interests.

So... by helping those in Africa properly, we will be securing the safety of our own country.

I disagree that helping Africa will benefit anyone but Africa. that dosent mean i DONT support helping Africa but I think it should be done just because its a mess and not because It will help Britain or the United States in the slightest. Although it will, Africa is a continent a large one at that, and has many natural resources.
Also Africans where second class citizens in there own countries for many years and this is only begining to change. This is a mess coloinizers created and they should fix it.
Suprisingly not the US though! the Slave trade was pre existing even before the Portugese entered it. It acctually benefited African rulers and they where more than happy to sell enemys of other tribes as slaves to the United States. Not to downplay the injustice that was the slave trade.

However look at Africa as a continent it has every conceivable problem as a continent: famine, drought, disease, civil war, and corruption. How can this problem be solved? I dont think it can be done by ending the debt as Bono suggests either.
I think heavy duty intervention will be neccasary to make sure the aid is used properly.